Canon has always been a very rigid company with it's introductory pricing and has always priced successive products at the exact same price as previous generations, adjusted for inflation for the last 20 years. Their pricing has been so extremely consistent it deviates from the inflation rate in Japan less than a fraction of a percent. Their pricing is very similar to what Apple does in this way. The 5D Mark III marks the first time in history that Canon has ever priced a new generation of a product lower than the last generation.

If you have issues with the dollar amount complain about the devaluing of the US dollar, not about Canon.

I think the 5D III is a monumental upgrade, and the fact it's being offered for less than the last version was at introduction is all the more amazing.

Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue. If history is any indication the price will be cut in half over the next few years too

Not really sure where your getting your inflation data. According to this page: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, based on CPI inflation, $2999 in 2007 is about the same as $3278 today, due to a change in inflation of 9.3%.

You could try to factor in commodities inflation, however those are fairly volatile markets, and month-by-month inflation or deflation in commodities (which can indeed be extreme over the short term) are not nearly as severe over the long term.

I think the 5D III is a bit over priced regardless. Based on CPI inflation, its about $300 more than it should be if we just accounted for inflation. It certainly has a major boost to some key features, like AF, but I'm not sure that really matters in the face of highly competitive pricing from Nikon on their D800, placing it at $3000. Inflation of the D700 starting price of $2999 would indicate that an equivalent pricing today of about $3157. (So Nikon is underselling the D800 on an inflation-normalized price curve.)

Either Canon really thinks they have a whopper of a camera housed in the 5D III and it will sell like hotcakes regardless the price, or they will be dropping some huge rebates in a few months when sales don't pick up like they expect it to. (Personally, with the Olympics just around the corner, I think the 5D III will sell like hotcakes for a while, and rebates will drop a few months after.) Once sales drop off, Canon will have to get competitive on price, and I figure it will settle around $2999...in line with the D800 (and most peoples expectations of a fair price.)

(BTW, if $2999 in 2007 equaled $4200 today, that would mean we had 40% inflation in about four years. There is NO WAY we've had that much inflation in four years. Its been about 1/4 that much on a normalized basis.)

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + exchange rate. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.

Logged

XanuFoto

I suspect Nikon is not even making money on the D800. They are a small company who went through turmoil and think they can get some market share with the D800. I hope they succeed. Because go healthy compitation is good for all. i.e. customers.

Something else to bear in mind. I was reading through the specs earlier and it states in the CPN Europe article, that they have made the anti-aliasing filter thinner. Nikon are charging extra for the removal in the D800E. Of course, I don't know how the filter in the D800 compares.

jwong

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + exchange rate. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.

Nikon is a Japanese company too and they chose to price the D800 for 3000. Does the exchange rate + inflation argument not apply to Nikon as well?

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + exchange rate. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.

Nikon is a Japanese company too and they chose to price the D800 for 3000. Does the exchange rate + inflation argument not apply to Nikon as well?

I was addressing the perception of money versus the historical record.

You're addressing the problem of perception of money versus the current camera market.

The 5D III I think is even more of a bargain when you consider the market. The D800 is a high megapixel pro camera that is otherwise unremarkable. The 5DIII has 2 stops of improved low light performance, which is astounding to say the least, and it features 1 series build quality. Both of those are very expensive features to put in a camera. More megapixels are not an expensive feature. The 5D III is really like combining a D3X and the D3S into one body and charging half as much which is great, though not everyone wants the features.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 09:05:55 PM by Radiating »

Logged

randplaty

I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked. So if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.

Good post. People are just mad that they can't afford this camera. They only had 3k saved, and if they had 3500 they would pay it... but they don't. Sucks for them.

I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. I really have no idea where these posts are coming from. When you correct for inflation and exchange rate the 5D Mark II was introduced at $4200 in today's dollars. $3500 is noticeably cheaper than $4200 the last time I checked. So if the past is any indication the good news is 5D III intro price will be cut in half in the next few years. Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue.

Good post. People are just mad that they can't afford this camera. They only had 3k saved, and if they had 3500 they would pay it... but they don't. Sucks for them.

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + exchange rate. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.

First off, I'd like a more detailed explanation or a source of record that verifies Canon uses the model your claiming they do to set price. (I'm not sure "exchange rate" was stated in your original unedited post.) Even assuming they do set US price on the basis of inflation and exchange rate, it doesn't actually change the fact that in the world reserve currency, US DOLLARS, the introduction price of the 5D II was quite literally $2999.

Exchange rate doesn't play a factor into the equation when you state "in today's dollars". We have had just over 9% inflation since 2007 (and actually, probably a bit less than that since September 2007), so if we are talking on an inflation-normalized basis...US Dollars are the only thing that matter when comparing the original USD price to the current USD price. The difference in price based on inflation is about $3200 today, or about $300 less than the $3500 it currently lists for.

I find that stating the original price of the 5D II was $4200 in USD to be very misleading. If you want to get the point across that I think you want to get, you might be better off doing it in Yen, and comparing the 5D II introductory yen price to the 5D III introductory yen price.

Nikon is a Japanese company too and they chose to price the D800 for 3000. Does the exchange rate + inflation argument not apply to Nikon as well?

I was addressing the perception of money versus the historical record.

You're addressing the problem of perception of money versus the current camera market.

The 5D III I think is even more of a bargain when you consider the market. The D800 is a high megapixel pro camera that is otherwise unremarkable. The 5DIII has 2 stops of improved low light performance, which is astounding to say the least, and it features 1 series build quality. Both of those are very expensive features to put in a camera. More megapixels are not an expensive feature. The 5D III is really like combining a D3X and the D3S into one body and charging half as much which is great, though not everyone wants the features.

In this respect, I don't disagree with you at all. I too find both the D800 and D4 rather unremarkable outside of the surprising 36.3mp sensor of the D800. The 5D III, despite its unremarkable sensor resolution, is very remarkable in every other respect.

MikeHunt

You're missing the point of the thread inflation + exchange rate. Canon is a Japanese company their price is 20% lower in Yen. They have always priced their products for the US market based on inflation adjusted Yen at introduction. I've researched this extensively and this practice goes back 20 years. They have always priced their products based on what the past version cost at introduction, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate. This goes back to the 20D the first EOS lenses, the 5D etc. So Canon really did break tradition for the first time in history to introduce this camera at a reduced price of $3500.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II was launched in September 2008 @ $2,699 for body only.

Using your logic, but substituting in 'real' money i.e. GOLD, it cost 3.25 ounces of Gold (as Gold was $830/oz.)

Now the new 5D3 is $3,499 for body only, is approximately just 2 ounces of Gold (as today old is $1710/oz.)

Thus according to your rationale, the newer model is actually cheaper!

Problem is, humans are irrational, they tend to look at the absolute amount, plus they go by experience that consumer electronics (computers/cameras/smartphones) become cheaper over time as the cost of the technology declines.